[Teas] Fwd: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E7E3A13B6; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:28:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K98V_t2RefeZ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 172B73A0D2C; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 22:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id r9so4688769ioo.7; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:28:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/lt+wiAWj+zf0LfXzlSBGo1Cz577tnWw/bFGj4QHwHU=; b=vFDdFEJERCwfxWRMYz3j3nGyqQ+B/VCNAYp8dIPioTZeBMxUtswqTGaYzkvqxkRzui oFUHCD2vAJVKUjzKb9lIV0OiepWlpAB9n+v8B3ulNqIS8OB8HfAq8PT+0NCIWJ8f1hau dkjfFFfsvSUcdy/8mVq0iskJgF61iEU+2pFTbSea9pQOTwYKOaJ9HGaVGj9A8jDHPK8P rToe8DTtn9jSUVXYID4gWhOiDWugGnTaYAQVDK1hvirIBTGdZeFv6PYJvsNIEXiA5StM oYRnpdJGjun+X6Ul7/jfqhFZMC57kWXFIJVX5udn0zHgQ6E8dUtX0l4cnoxjEnTp6U5X nKEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/lt+wiAWj+zf0LfXzlSBGo1Cz577tnWw/bFGj4QHwHU=; b=lkBeElzw+yiYQ7k5Hbo4WgRDd7Y1YgoUzPrqJLWSlxm/FwIwBa/LT7Ao7xBPcEy1h0 1LK+fyKaE529DuWfGFRah6B7CN/zGdWw0E0Yp1ZWxeaqTJ3EksERT1KJHGNEzbiBQRld 80nA4d3F3iZkdaHt5dkqmwJFnBK6Ij9YufFfhyKjUGeZ5dXiFOrOU21+PjodhpALrEMf xQxrpzQictklEJDHjLKIoqJ6UzlX34Lx0tXNStr8PpUJt+mnUcMI982zeQZ1c/I9JNSl Lhw1IlnCs3aXsUSbpaHbiV/vq0aMjXqyN/GUQ7bN2mcIGozsKmTxqDQ3GJr+0BGp0JDV VcvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BhjCDIf3vYO9bqymxI8nT/C6PfMXlxZUUvuWw4HcGxNDs1myx YtjS+tEUQxBABwM4fmONjPfiV17brqGD8rsXpP7Lk1zz/GZ/Fw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwT6UoqkUswWdcs80SSsZeUwDv4WlLPjYYu61uhhLcyEk64WSAprGmHxmG/RDSwAVIzeXxw4+6uIPMoWwbKa+Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:6d51:: with SMTP id e17mr4173915jaf.76.1607063289008; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 22:28:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <777B2AC4-CACF-4AB0-BFC7-B0CFFA881EEB@cisco.com> <CAOj+MMEmmFfN228okgFGM09qaiB8s0nS_8rQEqwBVsdJidy8XA@mail.gmail.com> <F1AE46BD-5809-467A-9CE1-69C08406CB40@gmail.com> <CAOj+MMED+kWaT8Hr-ohq8U1ADYrcNCQDX-svADzVjbo81urJ8A@mail.gmail.com> <5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <5ec998de-115b-4a0a-818d-5df893082d49@Spark>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:57:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn48waYZJ8nGP8ErUTc-pmV2p_=iB4gjbzDLcfNgufP4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org)" <teas@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/VSvb-HJ_MyaTB_8zsWktLerBFfE>
Subject: [Teas] Fwd: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 06:28:15 -0000


An interesting thread at LSR on 'what is TE' in the context of Flex Algo!

Two questions for us -
1. Should we include Flex Algo in RFC3272bis?
2. Should we expand on "partial TE" to accommodate these cases a little better?



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IGP Flexible Algorithms
(Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks" - draft-bonica-lsr-ip-flexalgo-01
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>om>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>rg>, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>

Anything else than IGP metric based SPT is considered TE. Looking
holistically - topology virtualization (or similar) could have been a
better name.

On Dec 3, 2020, 4:25 PM -0800, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>et>, wrote:

Hi Tony,

The moment I hit "Send" I knew that this response may be coming as it
really depends what is one's definition of TE.

If indeed IGP TE is anything more then SPF - then sure we can call it
a TE feature.

However, while a very useful and really cool proposal, my point is to
make sure this is not oversold - that's all.


On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:13 AM Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> > However I really do not think that what Flexible Algorithm offers can be compared or even called as Traffic Engineering (MPLS or SR).
> >
> > Sure Flex Algo can accomplish in a very elegant way with little cost multi topology routing but this is not full TE. It can also direct traffic based on static or dynamic network preferences (link colors, rtt drops etc ... ),  but again it is not taking into account load of the entire network and IMHO has no way of accomplish TE level traffic distribution.
> >
> > Just to make sure the message here is proper.
> It’s absolutely true that FlexAlgo (IP or SR) has limitations. There’s no bandwidth reservation. There’s no dynamic load balancing. No, it’s not a drop in replacement for RSVP. No, it does not supplant SR-TE and a good controller. Etc., etc., etc….
> However I don’t feel that it’s fair to say that FlexAlgo can’t be called Traffic Engineering.  After all TE is a very broad topic. Everything that we’ve done that’s more sophisticated than simple SPF falls in the area of Traffic Engineering.  Link coloring and SRLG alone clearly fall into that bucket.
> I’ll grant you that it may not have the right TE features for your application, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not sufficient for some.  Please don’t mislead people by saying that it’s not Traffic Engineering.
> Regards,
> Tony
Lsr mailing list

Lsr mailing list